He may get hundreds of thousands of dollars due to this idiotic $1 verdict. It opens the door to collect attorney’s fees and possible reinstatement with back pay.
In some circumstances, even a plaintiff who formally "prevails" under § 1988 should receive no attorney's fees at all. A plaintiff who seeks compensatory damages but receives no more than nominal damages is often such a prevailing party. As we have held, a nominal damages award does render a plaintiff a prevailing party by allowing him to vindicate his "absolute" right to procedural due process through enforcement of a judgment against the defendant. Carey, 435 U. S., at 266. In a civil rights suit for damages, however, the awarding of nominal damages also highlights the plaintiff's failure to prove actual, compensable injury. Id., at 254-264. Whatever the constitutional basis for substantive liability, damages awarded in a § 1983 action "must always be designed `to compensate injuries caused by the [constitutional] deprivation.' " Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S., at 309 (quoting Carey, supra, at 265) (emphasis and brackets in original). When a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, see Carey, supra, at 256-257, 264, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all. In an apparent failure to heed our admonition that fee awardsunder § 1988 were never intended to " `produce windfalls to attorneys,' " Riverside v. Rivera, supra, at 580 (plurality opinion) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976)), the District Court awarded $280,000 in attorney's fees without "consider[ing] the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the fee award." Hensley, supra, at 438.
Methinks Mr. Lane might be having a bad evening. Also, if Mr. Churchill didn't sign a contingent fee agreement, he might be wondering how far is $1 will go. (Or a jerk like Churchill might just be conjuring up a new lawsuit against his esteemed counsel).
As I recall the university limited its reasons for dismissal in order to be nice. We all know there were multiple reasons (false resume, plagiarism in writing and art work, etc.)
Just another case of poor defense by lawyers who did not take the case seriously and/or university administrators who tried to be nice and said stupid things to help this clown.